The Liability for Tort for a Company - Essay Example

? Tort Law Introduction This paper is an investigation of the liability for tort for a company involved in the manufacture of waterproof membranes that are utilized for civil construction. The activities of the company and its employees have resulted into injury and death for the plaintiffs being represented. The case in question concerns three parties of who this analysis will attempt to determine liability. The analysis of the torts committed will be taken from the perspective of a plaintiff suing from the perspective of battery, and negligence. The analysis will attempt to discover the amount of liability that accrues to the parties involved in both tort at common law and in the UAE civil code. This analysis will take into account the various damages that may be available to the plaintiffs according to the breaches of the Civil Code and tort in Common Law. The analysis of liability will therefore be pursued in a manner that will ensure that people that were harmed by negligence and battery will be justly compensated and the persons who breached the law are punished. Liability The Company Under common law, the company may be liable for battery since the chemicals that were ingested by the townspeople and the children originated from the company. The company is guilty since the elements of battery are present in the case. Offensive contact is proved by the coming into contact of the people and the chemicals through water, which resulted into injury in death. There is a lack of consent on the part of the townspeople on the dumping of the chemicals in the water. Additionally the company does not have the privilege of dumping toxic wastes in the public systems. The case for battery however lacks the element of intent since the company has proved that it educated its workers on proper disposal and as such not intended to careless dump of its chemical waste. In Garratt v. Dailey [1955] 2 d 46 [HL]1 the plaintiff brought battery charges against the plaintiff a five year old of pulling the chair she was about to sit on causing her injury. The issue was in question was whether battery charges are improvable since intent of the child is not easily proven. The company is therefore not liable for battery. The company may also be sued on negligence since it is because of its workers actions that the injury to the townspeople and children occurred. The three elements of negligence; duty of care, breach and proof of injury are all present in this instance. Duty of care entails that the company owes it to the community to be careful in the disposal of waste. A breach would entail the non-adherence to such care, which would result to an injury. This exemplified by the case of Talmage v Smith, 101 Mich. 370, 374, 59 N.W. 656 2 in which it was held that liability is proved upon the consideration of a reasonable man’s precautions towards the happening of an injury. The duty of care was breached when the company allowed its chemicals to infect the public water system resulting into injury for the townspeople3. The company did not ensure the proper disposal of chemicals by its staff and as such liable for negligence. Under strict liability, the company may argue that it was not aware that the tanks might leak chemicals into the system. It might also be argued that the company had trained its staff with regard to the handling of such chemicals. Strict liability usually has only one element; liability arises from the happening of an injurious event. Under strict liability there is no need top prove intent such as in battery but simply that injury occurred. Under strict liability doctrine, the company is liable in that even though it took all precautions, under common law, it is still liable in tort. A good example of this is the case of Cambridge Waster Company v. Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 2643 (HL) the rule is that even as people have a right of enjoyment of land, the keeping of anything on the land will result to liability if it escapes from the land4. The UAE Civil Code does not hold any person to liability because of the actions of third parties. A person is however liable in certain specified situations such as harm resulting from things under the control or supervision of the person. Under the UAE Civil code the company as a legal person will be liable under Section 5 c subsection 1 of direct causation. The code makes any person who has anything under his control that causes injury to other persons to be liable in tort5. In this instance, the company was in control of the chemicals and hence any injury or damage resulting from the chemicals would make the company liable in tort. The Boss Under common law, the boss may not be sued for battery since the management of the company is distinguished from the company in common law. Even as all the elements of battery are present such as offensive contact, lack of consent, and lack of privilege, intent to cause injury to the townspeople cannot be proved on the part of the boss. Offensive contact would entail that there was contact between the plaintiffs and a substance deemed to be offensive. Consent would entail that the defendant was allowed to perform a certain action by the plaintiff. Privilege would mean that the company has a right in disposing of chemicals in the manner it deemed fit. Intention must be proved in a manner to show that the boss intended to harm the townspeople. Since intent is improvable, the boss is thus not liable to battery on the suit. The Garratt v. Dailey [1955] 2 d 46 [HL]6 case is a good example in the proving of intent. In this instance, intent to commit a tort on the part of the boss is improvable. In the instance of negligence, there is also a question on whether the boss is liable in a suit. Negligence relies upon the duty of care, the breach of that duty and injury or damages sustained by persons. It must be proved that there was a breach of the duty owed to the community by the boss and that there was a subsequent breach that led to injury. In this instance, the boss owed a duty of care to the townspeople and the entire community not to allow dangerous chemicals to enter their water systems as was held in Stapley v Gypsum Minbes Ltd [1953] AC 663 and in National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne [1961] 105 CLR 5697. The duty of care was breached when the boss allowed his employees to dispose of the dangerous chemicals carelessly. The last element of negligence by the boss is the resultant injury to the townspeople and the children that makes him liable for negligence. This is exemplified by the ruling in McGhee v. National Coal Board[1972] 3 All E.R. 1008 and also in Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 4678 in which the rule was held that even if proximate cause is improvable, delegated responsibility is enough to make a person liable in tort. Under strict liability, the counsel for the boss may argue that management took all care in order to ensure that all the workers were trained on proper handling of chemical materials. Strict liability would make use of one critical element to determine liability. The boss will assume liability if he was in charge of an act which led to injury. While the workers may have been trained on how to dispose the chemicals in the appropriate manner, the boss will still be liable under strict liability since this did not prevent the employees from disposing the chemicals in the improper way. The boss will also be liable in that he did not ensure that the employees disposed of the chemicals in the appropriate manner. This is exemplified in Rylands v. Fletcher [1868] 3 ER 330 (HL)9 in which the defendants were held liable even though they did not foresee harm to their neighbor’s property by their action10. Under the Civil Code of the UAE, the parties, any legislation that is intended to restrict the liability of an employee or the contractor from liability is null. Liability is also analyzed from the perspective of causation under the civil code. Since the boss is charged with running the company a duty which he delegated to the employees, any action that is done by the employees in performance of their duties makes the boss liable. The code also makes any person who has supervisory responsibilities liable for any actions by his juniors that result into damages under the doctrine of Respondeate Superior11. The boss is liable for the actions of the employees in contaminating the water supply system12. Employees The employees may be liable for battery since they are directly responsible for dumping chemicals in an appropriate manner, which resulted into the death of the townspeople and children. Offensive contact must be proven to have resulted from the actions of the employees. A lack of consent or privilege on the part of the employees must also be proved. The act must be shown to have happened with intent to harm the community. Employees may be held liable for battery if the offence may be proved to have resulted into offensive contact, injury, intent, and it lacked consent or privilege. In this instance the criteria for battery has been met partially. Offensive contact, injury, and lack of consent are all present while intent is missing. Intent to cause injury is lacking in the instance of the employees since it is improvable that it was their intention to cause a leakage of dangerous chemicals into the town’s water system. The case of Garratt v. Dailey [1955] 2 d 46 [HL]13 is a good example of tort principle applicable in this instance. The plaintiff brought charges against the defendant for causing unforeseen injuries to his leg. The ruling of the court held that whether injury is caused to someone either by foreseen or unforeseen is of no consequence. What is the important issue that should be taken into consideration is intent. The employees are therefore not liable to battery in this instance. The Employees may be liable for negligence since they are responsible for careless disposal of waste resulting into death and injury of the townspeople and their children. The necessary elements for proving negligence are duty of care, breach of that duty and resultant damage or injury to persons as was held in Hatnes v Harwood[1935] 1 KB 14614. It must be determined that there was a duty of care owed to the community and that duty was breached leading to injury. In the instance of the employees, they owe a duty to the society to be careful when they are dealing with substances, which are potentially harmful to the health of the public. This duty of care was breached when the employees despite their training on waste disposal decided to dispose of chemical wastes carelessly. This principle is evident in Bus v Sidney County Council [1989] 167 CLR 7815in which it was held that negligence may be proved by defendants having knowledge of potential harmful activities yet continuing in such activities. The action of the employees led to a leakage of dangerous chemical waste into the water system of the town leading to death and injury. The employees are therefore liable to the tort of negligence in a civil suit. The employees are liable under strict liability for their role in the contamination of the water system of the town. Under strict liability, only one element is essential in order to prove liability; injury can be proved to have happened to other persons. Under strict liability, the mere fact that injury has occurred makes the person who committed an act liable. In this case, it is clear that injury has happened to other persons since some of the townspeople and children have died as a result of using water contaminated by chemicals from the employees’ action as was ruled in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] ukhl 100, 1932 sc 3116. The application of the principle of strict liability therefore makes the employees liable in a civil suit. The employees are further liable under the UAE Civil Code for exercising the duty of care under section 5b. The element that is essential under the UAE Civil Code in order to prove liability in tort is the requirement that the contractor is held responsible for all act that are undertaken in his capacity as a contractor. Under the UAE Civil Code, the contractor has a duty of care to offer good that are suitable to fellow humans17. Any breach of such conditions that is contrary to moral rules of Sharia makes a person liable under breach of duty18. The employees in acting negligently were in breach of the terms of the Civil Code since they were supposed to exercise due diligence to fellow man in the disposal of dangerous chemicals, which they did not and were thus liable under the UAE Civil Code. Conclusion The actions committed by the company in polluting the water supply of the system of the town and its consequences make the company, the employees and the boss liable to tort though not in all aspects of tort. Liability of the three parties to a civil suit is provided in different aspects of tort law though in different and varying degrees. Liability for torts, which is divided into battery, negligence, strict liability, and under the UAE Civil Code, provides for liability for each party according to the level of responsibility for harm done. The instance provided in this instance does not provide liability for any of the parties in battery since, even as it possesses all the other necessary elements of battery, intent to cause injury cannot be proved on the part of the accused. Negligence on the other hand, leads to liability for the company, the employees and the boss against whom all the three elements; duty of care, breach of that duty, and resultant damage or injury may be proven. All of the three respondents are however liable under strict liability. Strict liability requires that only injury as a result of an action be proven in order for a person to be liable in a civil suit. In this instance, there is a clear demonstration of the instance of injury as portrayed by the death and injury of the townspeople and their children. Under the UAE Civil Code, all of the respondents are liable in tort according to the Federal Law No. 5 of 1985. The company will be held liable for all acts that are undertaken by the employees since the company is a legal entity and actions by its employee’s are deemed to be company actions. The boss is liable in his capacity as the executive officer. Since the boss is supposed to run the company, any one he hires to perform these tasks is deemed to be doing them on his behalf making him liable. The employers on the other hands are taken to be contractors who under the code are liable to torts for any action committed that harms other persons. Bibliography Bus v Sidney County Council [1989] 167 CLR 78 Cambridge Water Co v Easter Counties Leather Plc [1994] 2AC 264 (HL) Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955). Hatnes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146 McGhee v National Coal Board, [1972] 3 All E.R. 1008, 1 W.L.R. 1 National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne [1961] 105 CLR 569 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330; [1861–73] All E.R. Smith v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1957) 97 CLR 337 Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd [1953] AC 663 Talmage v S Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100, 1932 SC 31. UAE Civil # 5 of 1985 Article 316 Article 313(1) (b) Article 282 Article 106(2) (b) Read More